Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2025CWP/31691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical reimbursement; open heart surgery; Escorts on State recognised list; AIIMS rates rejected; Medical Board queue avoided; alternate hospital as per policy; right of self-preservation; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H) C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992; SLP No. 22024 of 1995; K.L. Kohli 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H); Ravi Mohan Duggal (DB); Prem Singh Gill; Tarlok Chander 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H); Mrs. Surya Pandit 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H); Punjab & Haryana High Court SCT precedents; 'We think to the contrary'.

What did the court decide?

Self-preservation of one's life is a necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. ¶10

Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's medical-reimbursement claim for treatment at Escorts (open-heart surgery at a hospital the State itself had recognised) could be rejected merely because he did not stand in queue before the Medical Board or obtain treatment at AIIMS. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Self-preservation of one's life is a necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The appellant had the right to take steps in self-preservation; he did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board (whose manning made meetings difficult) and could go to an alternate hospital as per policy instead of waiting at AIIMS.

¶11

Key takeaways

Since the State itself had brought Escorts onto the recognised list, it was futile to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone there and that his claim could not be allowed on suppositions; the court concluded 'We think to the contrary', i.e., the appellant's claim prevailed on this basis, continuing the Sadhu R. Pall line of decisions.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certified 5-page extract attested by Paritosh Kumar (stamps dated 20.10.2025), containing only quoted paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 of a judgment whose identifying header (court, case number, bench, date) is not present in the extract. Paragraph 8 records that the policy recognising open-heart-surgery treatment at Escorts was examined by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992, Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H), decided 6.10.1993, where the writ petitioner's reimbursement claim for life-saving surgery at Escorts was accepted and the State's plea to confine payment to AIIMS rates was rejected; the Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against it is recorded as dismissed by 'this Court' on 2.2.1994, and five subsequent Punjab & Haryana judgments following Sadhu R. Pall are listed (K.L. Kohli; Ravi Mohan Duggal; Prem Singh Gill; Tarlok Chander; Mrs. Surya Pandit). On the merits, the court held that self-preservation of life is a necessary concomitant of the Article 21 right to life; that the appellant need not have queued before the Medical Board or at AIIMS and could use an alternate hospital as per policy; and that, Escorts being on the State's own recognised list, the claim could not be disallowed on suppositions ('We think to the contrary'). No operative disposition or quantum appears in the extract.

¶1

Page - 1 - of 5

¶2

PARITOSH KUMAR 2025.10.20 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document

¶3

Page - 2 - of 5

¶4

PARITOSH KUMAR 2025.10.20 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document

¶5

Page - 3 - of 5

¶6

PARITOSH KUMAR 2025.10.20 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document

¶7

“8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1994. The other judgments of the High Court following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's case are :

¶8

(1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on 10.5.95 titled K.L. Kohli v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H);

¶9

(2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State of Punjab and others (DB)

¶10

(3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others;

¶11

(4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); and

¶12

(5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others (SB)

¶13

xxx xxx xxx

¶14

10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India , fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and

¶15

Page - 4 - of 5

¶16

PARITOSH KUMAR 2025.10.20 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document

¶17

right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law…

¶18

11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare-facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary…”

¶19

October 17, 2025 Paritosh Kumar

¶20

Page - 5 - of 5

¶21

PARITOSH KUMAR 2025.10.20 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document

Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr.

Sangat Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Kishan Mittal Vs Hafed and Another

Om Prakash Sihag Vs State of Haryana and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab